An Evolutionary Theory Not Proposed Since 1898

Some economist is now trying to pontificate on human evolution, and it seems he’s spent more time reading The Time Machine than any text on evolutionary theory. The result? He believes that in the next hundred millennia we will split into Eloi- and Morlock-like subspecies… because of current trends in what is considered attractive.

Pharyngula has already responded to this one as ‘utter nonsense’. Aside from his comments, I would also add that there’s no way to know that what is attractive today is still going to be attractive in one, ten, or a hundred millennia. The stick-thin, praying mantis view of female beauty that we hold today is not one that was held in Rueben’s time, and there’s no reason it can be expected to still be held in the future. Never mind that human beings are not peacocks, attracted solely by another’s plumage, but are thinking, emotional creatures that are sometimes attracted purely to people who make us laugh, or make us feel safe, or are wonderful people.

Bollocks. This guy should stick to bean counting.

6 Responses to “An Evolutionary Theory Not Proposed Since 1898”

  1. Without making the effort to read his ideas – there’s some value to continued human evolution (but as a species we’re reaching the average sell-by date of 2 Ga – so prolly won’t last long enough to evolve further). Especially since there are now more obese people in the world thatn there are malnourished. One wonders whether the high metabolism genes / non-fat storing genes will win out cos what was previously evolutionarily advantageous is now defunct in a world where fat is too easy to come by.
    But on the beauty thing – they’ve done loads of studies proving that our concepts of beauty haven’t changed much at all. It’s all about symmetry and fertile hip ratios in the end.
    But I doubt very much that we will evolve any more – survival is just not an issue for most of us.

  2. i think the critical point that Pharyngula made is you can’t posit future human evolution without knowing what the environmental factors will be, and that’s impossible.

  3. i think the guy who came up with this theory just wanted an excuse to go on about his fantasies of pert female breasts in a pseudo scientific manner if you ask me!

  4. oh and huge penises of course. silly me for forgetting.

  5. that too is a workable theory šŸ˜‰

  6. šŸ™‚
    any excuse…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: